07 (1) Hampshire v. Kent. Southampton, June 8, 9, and 10. Hampshire had most of its available strength, but not Kent, who missed Hie bowling of Messrs. Absolom and Foord-Kolsey, as well as the batting of Mr. Yardley. Indeed, with the exception of Mr. A. Penn,'the Kentish bowling was so weak that high scoring by Hampshire was certain. In the first innings most of the work was done by Messrs. Booth (75), and Duncan (68), and these two contributed 143 out of 204 runs from the hat. Six batsmen on the side of Kent attained double figures, but none of any value, as \ \ illis's 38 was the liighest, and Mr. Mackinnon’s 28 the only other sum above a score. Kent was in a sore plight with its howling in Hampshire1 i second innings, and eight of the eleven hod to try their hands. Mr. Carter scored 34 out of the first #32 runs made, and Mr. Duncan, a young amateur of great promise, again played very fine cricket for 58. Three wickets were down for 203, and the eleven were out for 271. Kent had 332 runs to win, but this was a task far beyond their capacity, though it is to be stated that their chances were not improved by the heavy wicket. Lord Harris scored 33, Mr. A. Penn 10, and \Vood 13 ; the eight remaining batsmen between them scored 29 runs from the bat. Hampshire won by 230 runs, a victory of good omen,considering that it’w'astlie first match played at the old headquarters of Hampshire cricket, the Antelope Ground. Hampshire, 215 and 271; total, 186. Kent, 155 and 95 ; total, 250. For Kent Mr. A. Penn's slow round bowling took 14 out of 20 wickets, at a cost of 173 runs. Mr. Ridleys “ lobs,” for Hants, were still more effective. Over?. Maidens. Kims. "Wickets. 85.1 37 94 12 (2) Hampshire v. Kent. Faversham, August 17, 18, and 19. This was the last match of the Hampshire season, and almost a parallel of its first. Kent was this time well represented, but the wicket wras not of the best, and tlio Kentish team, one and all, played the “ lob s ’*of Mr. Ridley with hesitation and fear. Indeed, the cricket show n by the home county was not <»f the best at any point of the game. The ground wTas not very large in dimensions and the out-fielding was so rough that “ extras ” were plentiful. Kent began well by securing three Hampshire wickets for 24 runs, but Mr. Bidley defied all their efforts until he was at last caught after a fine innings of 104. “ Ex t ras” contributed 48 towards a total of 277, and of these 33 were byes. The two Kentish innings require little comment. Mr. Foord-Kclccy hit well into the air for 31 in the first, aud Mr. Maekimion played a sound not-out score of 37 in the second. Otherwise, with the exception of Lord Harris’s first score of 24, there was no batting at all up to tho mark. Hampshire w’on by an innings and six runs. Hamp­ shire, 277. Kent, 129 and 112 ; total, 271. Mr. Hidley’s bowling w'as the more noteworthy considering the narrowTlimits of the ground for a slow bowler. Overs. 89.2 D. Duncan. , , A. W. Ridley C. Booth . . , Maidens. Ituns. W ie ld s . 36 113 1 0 B a t t in g A v e r a g e s . Inniugs. h not oet. Runs. Most in Most in . „ au Inn*. u Match. 3 0 15G 68 126 52 7 0 239 104 101 34.1 7 0 171 75 77 21.6 6 *